Brett and Nazim cover sex offenders and Separation of Powers in the form of Gundy v. U.S., a case that asks whether Congressional delegation regarding sex offender registration to the attorney general violates the Constitution. The law starts at (06:15), but there’s a fair amount of tangents, including some solid Jeopardy talk.
This week’s episode tips its toes into International Law, and Brett and Nazim discuss treaties and how treaties fit into the hierarchy of domestic law. This episode also covers two cases involving U.S. treaties, Washington State Licensing Dept. v. Cougar Den and Herrera v. Wyoming. Law starts at (10:49).
We’re kicking off “Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League.” I’d abbreviate that to AfTFSCOTUSL, but I don’t find that helpful at all, and it’s not like I’m spending time on saying that, or even using up paper with it. I also feel compelled to make some jokes about Texas here, but I’m coming up blank. So, I’m going to move on to the helpful words.
We pick some US Supreme Court cases, you pick some outcomes, and we repeat that process every month. At the end of the term, we evaluate who guessed most accurately, and give the winner a pithy prize. If you win, we might send you some law books. Or, I don’t know, an alien femur from Area 51. If you win a couple of terms in a row, we can discuss naming rights.
Quote
—
Posted: November 1, 2018 by Nazim in Fantasy Supreme Court League
Break out your Von Dutch hats, it’s time to talk Truckers, and by proxy, employment relationships and arbitration clauses. By popular demand, Brett and Nazim discuss New Prime, Inc. v. Olivera, which covers generally how poorly arbitration clauses are applied across the board. Law starts at (06:52).
Listen, this episodes a little off the hinges. The primary case is Frank v. Gaos, which discusses whether class action claims that don’t actually give people money are legit, sort of sets the stage for a tangent-filled discussion between tired Nazim and punchy Brett. The law starts in earnest at (06:32), get side-tracked and basically starts at (14:24).
This week’s episode covers Madison v. Alabama, and whether or not the 8th Amendment bars the execution of someone who lacks mental capacity, but first Brett and Nazim read the single greatest listener feedback we’ve ever received. There’s no time stamp this week, because the intro is worth your time, and we’ll probably be making jokes about it until the end of time.
This week’s episode covers Double Jeopardy, and specifically whether the Court will overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine in the upcoming case of Gamble v. U.S. Brett and Nazim discuss recent Double Jeopardy decisions to see if this case is a secret plot by the government to expand Presidential power, or just strange bedfellows looking to change the law. Law starts generally at (05:40).
Well hello there. Considering that Congress has ruined our summer vacation, Brett and Nazim are here early to discuss “Second Best Brett” Kavanaugh’s calamity of an appointment before the Supreme Court. The “law” starts at (03:07), and for the record, I wanted to call this episode “You Give Brett a Bad Name”.
Dear contestants,
It wasn’t close. Austin took the lead early and never looked back. Sure, his December guesses were crap, and that confirms that the system is rigged, but his other scores are nuts. Seriously: we had psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychotherapists all examine his work, and he’s due for some sessions. Or drugs. Or both. We’d really prefer both. But congratulations for this achievement are due: amazing work, Austin!
Because he won two consecutive terms with such a staggering performance, we are naming future Fantasy leagues after this winner: this fall, we will open the Austin from LA SCOTUS Fantasy League. And, as the eponymous player, we still encourage Austin from LA, but he will not be eligible for the crown. It’s like those “named” professors: the next winner will be something along the lines of “Nazim, the Austin from LA 2018 SCOTUS Fantasy League winner.”
There are others worth mentioning: Donkey Punch used some pretty solid data-driven strategy (he just plugged in what a website told him to plug in), and scored 215 points for January, when many of us didn’t do very well. Brett lost lost to Nazim by a huge, very big, not small margin. And some amazing players only played for one round. Cade-VA Beach, why didn’t you come back after the first round? Adam in Rochester got the top score for April, but flaked in March and May. And Blake from Florida was tied for second highest score for March, but missed three of the ballots.
Maybe it’s out fault. Maybe we’re being too defensive about our religious rights. Maybe I should just enjoy a sandwich, regardless of whether it’s cut in half or not. We’ll never know. However, thank you for playing, and thank you for listening and giving us your feedback.
It’s the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are recording LIVE in front of a studio audience of three in Brett’s dining room. Brett and Nazim draft storylines they think will be popular this time next year, while recapping the Court’s term and talking about who is the most famous Bundy (Al, Peg, Ted, or King Kong). The Citizen’s Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 7th, 2018.
